-
Review Historical Article
[The systematic review is the foundation of evidence based medicine. One of the most important contributions to clinical medicine of the past decade].
- M Eliasson.
- Sunderby sjukhus, Luleå. Mats.Eliasson@nll.se
- Lakartidningen. 2000 May 31; 97 (22): 2726-8.
AbstractThe traditional narrative review has been shown repeatedly to be biased, mostly towards exaggerated treatment size effects. In contrast, the systematic review follows a strict protocol regarding focused questions, explicit criteria for literature searches, inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal and a synthesis which is quantitative when appropriate. There is empirical evidence that bias is reduced and that the conclusions reached have greater validity for the construction of treatment guidelines. In this paper three sources of systematic reviews are identified: the Cochrane Library, reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, and assessments of health technology (HTA-reports). Editors are encouraged to publish systematic reviews after proper critical appraisal, and readers are advised to search for such reviews when in need of guidance on important clinical questions.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..